Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2

Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relist to Feb 11. Primefac (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Urine tests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine with Template:Urine tests.
These two templates should really be merged, in view of overlapping content areas and similar subject matter. It benefits editors by having concepts like what is tested for in urinalysis displayed in the same navbox template as what the results are. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:FS number

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. The project seems extremely defunct, but the point about restarting is valid. Unless the entire thing is scrapped, I don't see these going anywhere. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FS number (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FS Month Stats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FSCnom/intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FSCnom/intro-delist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD protected (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD empty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:UpcomingSOTD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:NotifySOTD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD/2011-05-11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD default (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD protected/2011-05-31 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:SOTD protected/2011-05-30 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These unused templates are part of the infrastructure of the long-defunct Featured Sounds / Sound Of The Day initiatives (e.g. see Portal:Featured sounds and Wikipedia:Sound of the day/requests which has had no significant edits since 2007). They include references to things such as "the featured sounds director" and "designed to go live on the main page of the English Wikipedia sometime in 2011". DexDor^(talk) 06:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEep While FS is dormant for now, it's a project we should have, and deleting all infrastructure (including setup templates!) will only make it harder to restart with NO benefit to Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, unless there is a reason why the project would not work —PC-XT+ 05:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Reading F.C. Women squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reading F.C. Women squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few wikilinks, does not aid navigation JMHamo (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - five current links and four other players are capped by Wales, so "notable" with a reasonable prospect of getting articles shortly. 90.213.60.115 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough wikilinks, and the redlinks look to be non-notable so no possibility of them receiving articles as the IP falsely indicates. Giant Snowman 10:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are now nine links, despite what User:GiantSnowman falsely indicated! SevcoFraudsters (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have been proved wrong and redlinks have turned blue. Giant Snowman 06:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adequate # of wikilinks and aids navigation. Hmlarson (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).